Why would they, they’re not indigenous to the area either. It’s all bullshit. Nobody has a great claim, but they (the islanders) want to be British, so that should really be enough.
Why would they, they’re not indigenous to the area either. It’s all bullshit.
Kind of agree with you on this actually. I think their stronger claim has to do with the fact that Spain owned it, and Argentina inherited those islands when they won their independence from Spain. That, and the closeness of the islands to Argentina (350ish miles as the crow flies).
but they (the islanders) want to be British, so that should really be enough.
And the people in the taken over places in Ukraine that voted that they want to be part of Russia, should that allow Russia to claim those Ukranian lands?
We should strive for the win-win and people being happy, true, but when it comes to scarce resources like oil, it never ends up being that easy. As you put it, “It’s all bullshit”.
So the people that have inhabited the island for generations get no say?
I never said that. Just that a vote is not the only criteria on what is legal ownership or not.
You keep comparing this to russia and ukraine
When you say that one vote makes ownership legit/right, then another vote in another place (Ukraine) should too, which it doesn’t, because obviously one country invading another can’t be legally/ethically handwaved away by a region population vote.
That bolsters my point, that voting alone does not make an ownership.
are you feeling alright?
No need to be rude, and try and kill the messenger.
The principle of self determination is in the UN charter that you keep erroneously saying suggests the UK should hand over the islands because of.
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground, the people there want this to continue, and Argentina lacks the capability to force this to change.
I am not being deliberately obtuse but its hard when its clear you have no clue what you are talking about. This thread is full of people telling you this but you just keep repeating the same nonsense.
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
Ownership is not going to be decided by us here, but to say that one country can just put their people there so the land is theirs now doesn’t make it legally so.
These are completely different situations, like how can you be so willfully ignorant. Falklands aren’t actively being invaded or in a war. Do you really wanna win this Internet argument so bad, that you gotta make some dumb shit up?
These are completely different situations, like how can you be so willfully ignorant. Falklands aren’t actively being invaded or in a war.
I never said they were invaders/invaded, just that the land was being occupied/owned by one nation where another nation lays claim to that land, and if occupation alone is legal/ethically enough to ensure claim over the land. That’s it.
Sure what I said sounds like that, if you ignore the first half of the comment you are replying to.
Here’s the first and only sentence before the sentence I replied to …
The principle of self determination is in the UN charter that you keep erroneously saying suggests the UK should hand over the islands because of.
That has nothing to do with the questions I asked …
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
I was asking specifically about your statement about “Britain holds the ground”.
My point is just holding the ground is not enough to legally/ethically claim the land, especially if you’ve kicked out the people on said land that used to be there.
Why would they, they’re not indigenous to the area either. It’s all bullshit. Nobody has a great claim, but they (the islanders) want to be British, so that should really be enough.
Kind of agree with you on this actually. I think their stronger claim has to do with the fact that Spain owned it, and Argentina inherited those islands when they won their independence from Spain. That, and the closeness of the islands to Argentina (350ish miles as the crow flies).
And the people in the taken over places in Ukraine that voted that they want to be part of Russia, should that allow Russia to claim those Ukranian lands?
We should strive for the win-win and people being happy, true, but when it comes to scarce resources like oil, it never ends up being that easy. As you put it, “It’s all bullshit”.
I guess that’s a small part of a larger country so it complicates things. Maybe, I don’t particularly care, would be my personal answer.
Spain “owning” it doesn’t sound like an especially strong claim either.
Don’t think it fair to put double quotes around owning. Spain had/has a legitimate claim.
So the people that have inhabited the island for generations get no say?
You keep comparing this to russia and ukraine, are you feeling alright?
I never said that. Just that a vote is not the only criteria on what is legal ownership or not.
When you say that one vote makes ownership legit/right, then another vote in another place (Ukraine) should too, which it doesn’t, because obviously one country invading another can’t be legally/ethically handwaved away by a region population vote.
That bolsters my point, that voting alone does not make an ownership.
No need to be rude, and try and kill the messenger.
The principle of self determination is in the UN charter that you keep erroneously saying suggests the UK should hand over the islands because of.
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground, the people there want this to continue, and Argentina lacks the capability to force this to change.
I am not being deliberately obtuse but its hard when its clear you have no clue what you are talking about. This thread is full of people telling you this but you just keep repeating the same nonsense.
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
Ownership is not going to be decided by us here, but to say that one country can just put their people there so the land is theirs now doesn’t make it legally so.
These are completely different situations, like how can you be so willfully ignorant. Falklands aren’t actively being invaded or in a war. Do you really wanna win this Internet argument so bad, that you gotta make some dumb shit up?
I never said they were invaders/invaded, just that the land was being occupied/owned by one nation where another nation lays claim to that land, and if occupation alone is legal/ethically enough to ensure claim over the land. That’s it.
Sure what I said sounds like that, if you ignore the first half of the comment you are replying to.
Here’s the first and only sentence before the sentence I replied to …
That has nothing to do with the questions I asked …
I was asking specifically about your statement about “Britain holds the ground”.
My point is just holding the ground is not enough to legally/ethically claim the land, especially if you’ve kicked out the people on said land that used to be there.
So you do struggle with reading english then yeah? Or is it the concept of self determination that confuses you?